There is something about Middle East leaders who are "democratically" elected by the people who have faith in the Constitution which created that elected office. The leaders, when the time comes for them to leave, don't want to. Instead, in each case, except in Israel, they will hold onto that power, making the position a quasi-dictatorship.
Over this past weekend, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was replaced by the President of Iraq via a permissible move allowed by Iraq's Constitution, which al-Maliki swore to uphold. Shades of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan?
It was reported in the Monday afternoon online edition of the New York Times that al-Maliki refused to relinquish the post and has threatened a "coup d'etat" by stealing the military away from the Iraqi government to use for his own purposes. If this is true, we now have two serious problems in Iraq: ISIS beheading, crucifying and otherwise mutilating non-Muslims who do not capitulate to their demands, and a rogue, illegal, and now unconstitutional usurper of the Iraqi Constitutional process.
This action by the now potentially outlaw al-Maliki has complicated an already desperate situation in the most dangerous country in the Middle East. Bad enough that at a minimum the United States has involved itself in a country that Barry swore he would not put boots on the ground to overtake the butchers of ISIS; now he has to contend with a renegade who seems to have the loyalty of the Shi'ite-dominated military.
So, in response to the recent developments in Iraq, Barry is in high level, tense meetings with the ice cream man, the playground director of bike rides and the starter in charge of tee times, all to make certain the long-awaited family vacation goes on as planned without some unnecessary, inconvenient blip from a pissant country like Iraq. After all, every family is entitled to the two-week vacation with pay, and no calls from the office, right?
Actually, Barry called the new leader, Haider al-Abadi, to congratulate him, even though al-Maliki has complicated the process by refusing to leave. Mr. Abadi, a member of al-Maliki's Shi'ite Islamist Dawa Party, has thirty days under the Constitution in which “to form a government that offers meaningful positions to Iraq’s main minority factions, Sunnis and Kurds. During that time, Mr. Maliki will remain as a caretaker leader, and as commander in chief of Iraq’s security forces.”
Therein lies the dilemma for Iraq. The country is in turmoil north and west of Baghdad with the ISIS atrocities. Add to this the possibility al-Maliki doesn't leave. What then?
Does Barry forgo his moral responsibility to help Iraq secure its government and its national identity by turning his back on an ally? If he does, who steps in to secure the country? Iran?
The United States has, during Barry's time as President, has lost a huge amount of trust in that part of the world. If the Iraqi government falls because al-Maliki completed a coup, or if ISIS continues to tear apart the very fabric of this ancient land to establish a system far worse than Hitler ever conceived in Germany, or if Iran steps in to secure Iraq for itself, the US is doomed in the court of world opinion for its lack of moral equivalence to ever be trusted as an ally again.
That, friends, would be Barry's legacy: that under his (lack of) leadership, the world lost its knight in shining armor, its guardian angel, its last best hope for mankind. Because he didn't want to put boots on the ground when boots were necessary to help an ally in its time of distress. Americans will have died in vain and Iraq would be but a footnote in world history.
Vanilla or chocolate chip cookie dough on that cone?
No comments:
Post a Comment